Threatening YouTube Video Lands Man In Prison 243
wiredmikey writes "Norman LeBoon of Philadelphia was sentenced to 24 months in prison for his production and transmission of a YouTube video over the Internet last March containing a threat to injure and kill a United States Congressman. Following his arrest, LeBoon told federal agents that Eric Cantor is 'pure evil'; 'will be dead'; and that 'Cantor's family is suffering because of his father's wrath.'"
Breaking news... (Score:5, Insightful)
Threatening people is against the law. Film at eleven.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Threatening politicians gets you shipped to gitmo.
Threatening normal, everyday citizens? Police care less because their ticket quotas are more important.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Pretty much it.
The joys of a metrics driven "business". Run the cops like a business, get substandard policing where the rich get justice and the poor get screwed.
Re: (Score:2)
What exactly is the cop gaining or losing by not taking care of the poor verses the rich?
I really cannot fathom a thing that would make your statement remotely true. Perhaps if you said more serious threats get more attention or something else. I don't know, please explain.
Re:Breaking news... (Score:5, Insightful)
What exactly is the cop gaining or losing by not taking care of the poor verses the rich?
I really cannot fathom a thing that would make your statement remotely true. Perhaps if you said more serious threats get more attention or something else. I don't know, please explain.
OK. Lemme 'splain this to you.
In large metropolitan areas, police chiefs are elected. To be elected they need money. To get money(legally), they need to be connected. Money and influence are gained by staying in the good graces of people with disposable income to donate.
LK
Re: (Score:2)
I question your definition of "legally". Getting money from people for the purpose of being elected so you rule in favor of those that gave you money has the definition "bribe" in my book.
Re: (Score:2)
And I will go out on a limb here and say that you are perhaps a bit naïve.
Re: (Score:2)
If someone takes the trouble to make a similar video threatening to kill some nonpolitician he knows personally, I'd take that seriously too, because it might actually be personal and a real threat. Plus the video is good enough evidence in court to justify taking action, whereas "hearsay", "your word vs mine" or just one post in some forum or twitter is not enough.
If he's just spouting hate messages against "immigrants" or some other group, I wouldn't bother giving him extra publicity.
On the other hand if
Re: (Score:2)
Rich person = political pull = call to local government = cop's boss makes sure they respond to the threat against rich person.
Poor people probably get some response as most cops are in the business to help people, but I would imagine statistically, wealthy people are more likely to get immediate response and followup.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe you are replying to someone else?
I never said the op wasn't correct. I asked what it was they had to gain for doing it. The op said running the cops like a business ends up with the rich being taken care of and the poor being neglected. I want to know where and what the pay off is. How does it benefit the cops at all in doing that. Your mountain of bullshit for a reply doesn't answer that and attempts to confuse it by misdirecting. Please refrain from that.
Re: (Score:2)
Wow.. are you seriously saying that with a straight face? Or are you being facetious and I missed the que somewhere?
Re: (Score:2)
Huh? Federal officials are protected from threats under Title 18. Federal law makes it a felony. Threats against ordinary citizens are covered under state and local statutes, usually as civil law. It's rare for a verbal or written threat, however credible, to be treated as a felony, unless the person making the threat also takes some physical action such that there is a reasonable apprehension of the threat being carried out. These laws vary tremendously by locale, so it's impossible to make generalize
Re: (Score:2)
"You're an abomination, you receive my bullets in your office, remember they will be placed in your heads"
AND a "random" bullet has actually hit Cantor's office before. Yes last year, but that's not that long ago.
So yes there is good cause for arresting this guy.
If you want to influence an elected politician, write well-reasoned letters to them and vote accordingly.
Threatening them or allowing threats to go unchallenged, undermines democ
BULLSHIT ALERT ! (Score:5, Interesting)
"Threatening normal, everyday citizens? Police care less because their ticket quotas are more important."
WRONG.
You have no idea what you are talking about.
I, on the other hand, do. And that's because I have actual experience.
Communicating threats has never been taken more seriously than it is now.
I spent 30 months in prison for this crime. If someone believes your opinion
is an accurate representation of how law enforcement deals with this stuff, they
could find themselves in a world of shit.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Thing is women aren't very good at killing people (when compared to men). They're getting better at bashing people up, but still not so good at killing.
They're not even good at killing themselves. In the western world[1] women make more suicide attempts but have a poorer success rate.
If she made a threatening video with her waving an actual weapon and saying she's going to kill him with that, then she's past the "dangerous loony" to the "potentially lethal loony" point
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
I'm signed in and I will say I completely agree with you.
I got severely hassled because a witness for a murder trial said I scared her.
They picked me up from work, took me out handcuffed, sat me in jail over the weekend waiting to talk with a prosecutor, wouldn't let me talk to a lawyer or anything (I couldn't afford one at the time anyways), got me in front of a judge Monday morning and instead of charging me with anything, I was read the riot act by the judge about harassing and threatening others and wit
Re: (Score:2)
Wait, hes going to Gitmo? Do tell.
Hyperbole at eleven.
Re: (Score:3)
"We don't have quotas anymore. They let me write as many tickets as I want to now."
Re: (Score:2)
Threatening politicians gets you shipped to gitmo.
Threatening normal, everyday citizens? Police care less because their ticket quotas are more important.
That's possible, but I'd be willing to bet that public figures, on average, have a lot more people wanting to harm them than the normal everyday dudes.
Re: (Score:2)
Threatening politicians gets you shipped to gitmo.
What idiotic jackasses modded this +5? That guy is going to Gitmo just about as soon as I'm kissing Harry Reid's arse. And that's no time soon.
Norman LeBoon is going to some mid-security federal prison and that's that.
Re: (Score:2)
Threatening politicians gets you shipped to gitmo.
Threatening normal, everyday citizens? Police care less because their ticket quotas are more important.
The mod up to "Insightful" for a post like this is lazy, stupid -
and utterly predictable.
Google News will return 3,000 hits in a search for a phrase like "convicted [of] threats against."
It is a small but much needed corrective.
But less effective, I suppose, than simply drop-kicking the modder into the chill waters of Lake Huron.
Re: (Score:2)
Please for god's sake tell me you are kidding.
If a threat was part of an intimidation campaign designed to affect public policy, that would be one thing. But a threat against a citizen is a threat against a citizen, regardless of how many popularity contests that citizen wins.
Re: (Score:3)
Actually, he's not.
Private citizens are generally unknown in the scope of national or international events. Unless there are special circumstances, if something, such as murder, happens to them, it may make the local paper for a day.
I can't seem to find the number of murders in the US in 2010. From Jan 1 2002 to Dec 31 2008, 102,210 people were murdered in the US. That averages out to 14,601 per year, or about 40 per day.
Public figures are known
Re: (Score:3)
A congressman is not by any mean an everyday citizen. They are right to care more.
"All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others."
Re: (Score:2)
whoever told you that all animals are equal or that protecting people because of the nature of their job made them more equal.
I think someone has lied to you.
Re: (Score:2)
But but but it's youtubes and it's on the internets so there must be some exception... otherwise they're obviously censoring the internet, I tell ya!
Re:Breaking news... (Score:4, Insightful)
Well, this is generally only true if the threat is against a government official and if a reasonable person believes that the target has a reasonable apprehension of the threat being carried out. There are state and local laws covering stuff like "terroristic threats" and all kinds of civil statutes, but in order to rise to the level of a federal criminal rap, the threat has to be credible, specific, and targeted at a government official. This is why Pat Robertson got away with making a hit request against Hugo Chavez, for instance.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Except if it's against an ordinary person. Then not much will be done. That free speech thing in the constitution, which lists no exceptions, is completely worthless, anyway.
Re:Breaking news... (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, noone has ever [boston.com] been tried [inquisitr.com] for harrassing [nytimes.com] a normal person over the internet [nj.com], much less threatening them. [theregister.co.uk]
Re: (Score:2)
Yes. You are correct. The point is, though, that more often than not, it is completely ignored.
Re: (Score:2)
"It being ignored" means the person who receives the threat didnt feel the need to press charges. The responsibility lies with the offended party to bring the suit to light.
Re: (Score:2)
Nothing was done.
Thats because you have to file a complaint in order for something to be done. We dont have an internet police running around looking for death threats; in this country you usually have to press charges against someone for something to be done.
Re: (Score:2)
We dont have an internet police running around ...
...that you know of.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, in this case, it looks like the guy is mentally unstable. Well, I suspect a lot in prison are. (The criminally insane are the ones that likely can't be treated but are the only ones to get treatment. Oooooohhhhhkay. That makes sense. I'd rather pay a couple extra cents a year to see someone like this in a hospital than pay a fortune for the layers of security that will accumulate from incidents like this. Prevention pays off better than revenge, even if it's less fun for the media.)
Re: (Score:2)
My recollection on that situation was the Democrats claimed it was unfair to "incarcerate" the insane who were not dangerous to others, they got the ball rolling and Republicans saw this as a great cost savings opportunity. Congress, not Reagan was responsible. Both parties were more interested in talking points than serving the public interest. Like so many of the issues in this country, both parties have plausible deniability, but both are responsible.
Yuppies are, in my experience, overwhelmingly som
Re: (Score:2)
As for the rest, yes I oversimplified it. If you want to know more about it there's plenty of info online.
Re:Breaking news... (Score:4, Insightful)
Threatening people is against the law. Film at eleven.
Not just any people, but government workers... go to your local Social Security or DMV office, and you'll see a prominent sign stating that it is illegal to threaten any of the clerks working there. Wait, no... threatening someone with a show of force is commonly "assault" in the USA as well... if you flash a gun at me like you intend to do me harm, you just committed a crime... doesn't matter who I am.
Politicians in general receive fairly blanket protections, a real threat made against one is investigated and you're likely to face jail time if you meant it seriously, and a stern talking to about how they could lock you up if it was made in jest.
From the sound of TFS, this guy was a real threat to Eric Cantor, and the guy ought be in jail...
Re: (Score:2)
if you flash a gun at me like you intend to do me harm, you just committed a crime... doesn't matter who I am.
Right, it only matters who I am. If I work for the government, I can do that with impunity.
Re: (Score:2)
if you flash a gun at me like you intend to do me harm, you just committed a crime... doesn't matter who I am.
Right, it only matters who I am. If I work for the government, I can do that with impunity.
And cops can speed, and drive through red lights... we've authorized and licensed police to break various laws so long as it is done under color of law. In fact, undercover cops usually get licenses to break nearly any law short of murder regardless of circumstances or appearances.
They cannot legally do it "with impunity" or without good reason, but courts do grant them a wide latitude in this charge, because holding them to a strict accountability would impede their functionality. There is a good argument
Re: (Score:2)
Well then we have a serious problem because WORDS should be be a crime.
who doesnt want to kill every damn politican? FUCK.
Re: (Score:2)
Why is this tagged "YRO"? (Score:2)
I'm pretty damned pro-First Amendment, but c'mon people...YRO should involve actual infringement of rights, not well-settled exceptions thereto.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Because if you make the threat vague enough, you can't be found guilty of threatening *specific* people.
That's why they pay lawyers.
Norman LeBoon's mistake was calling out Eric Cantor.
I'm not making excuses for the Fox idiots. They're despicable. It's cynical gaming of the system, but that's the way it works.
--
BMO
Re: (Score:2)
It's funny how the Glenn Beck idiots are out modding this stuff "troll" and flamebait because they can't stand any criticism of their precious Fox celebrities.
Mouth-breathers, the lot of them.
Hey guys, I have more karma than you have mod points. Mod this down too.
Heh.
--
BMO
Who is the real mouth-breather? (Score:2)
Mouth-breathers, the lot of them.
My rule of thumb is that anyone who categorically declares any one group of people is a "mouth breather" or similar term, is themselves at best quite a bigot and probably also a "mouth breather", since they have stopped using that which lies between the ears to process new signal.
Re: (Score:2)
Anyone who takes Glenn Beck seriously is an idiot.
Glenn Beck doesn't take Glenn Beck seriously. Or at least he didn't before he started believing his own BS.
Hope this helps.
--
BMO
Sarah Palin "threat" specifically targeted (Score:2)
Sarah Palin wasn't exactly vague about identities with those photos, it's their threats that tend to be vague
In fact you could not be more wrong. By using the same symbolism and words that countless politicians have use before or since, the threats were extremely clear - "we want to elect someone other than you". Wow, how brutal.
Remember the person who ACTUALLY shot Giffords hated Palin just as much as you do. You should really reflect on that before you continue spreading hatred for someone you simply d
Re: (Score:2)
Name ONE statement made by Glenn Beck that any sane person would consider 'hate speech.' It just ain't him.
Just ain't him, huh? He had been giving a increasing amounts of time on his show over to conspiracy theorists with barely-hidden anti-semitic views. I think Fox finally canned him because they were afraid he was just one episode away from spewing actual hate speech, or agreeing with someone else's hate speech while on-air.
Re: (Score:2)
> conspiracy theorists with barely-hidden anti-semitic views.
You just lost the argument with that one. Glenn Beck an anti-semite? To make the charge proves beyond all doubt that you are just spewing stuff you read out in the fever swamps of the left instead of actually watching a single episode of his program. There isn't a more strident defender of Israel to be found on the Tube. Or did you even know that Mr. Beck is a fundamentalist Mormon and almost all fundies are big defenders of Israel. You co
Re: (Score:3)
Beck's only problem is that he's acutely religious. He solved his drinking problem by swapping it out for a dif
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Breaking news... (Score:4, Insightful)
Oh come the fuck on. Pray tell, what's the mechanism by which someone's bullets would get inside someone else's head, if not through the action of someone pulling a trigger? Is he going to surgically implant them in a willing patient, and has Mr. Cantor already signalled his & his family's willingness to have bullets surgically implanted in their heads in a painless & harmless medical procedure performed by (or financed by) Mr. LeBoon?
Sarah Palin's campaign puts together a poster with a fairly standard "target" symbol that happens to be a gun sight, and she's a bloodthirsty villain who advocates violence, but a guy records himself saying that "my bullets [...] will be placed in your heads," is not threatening, or encouraging, violence against an elected official?
I'm not sure why you're trying so hard to excuse this behavior - it's inappropriate on every level, regardless of the man's political affiliation. He deserves the full attention of law enforcement, and he's receiving exactly that now. Take his article and s/Cantor/Pelosi/g and tell me you wouldn't be howling for Rush Limbaugh's blood right now, in addition to advocating that the man making the threat, and at least 5-10% of the rest of conservatives (who "obviously" think the same way as this guy, on account of knowing how to use a gun), should be locked up?
Re:Breaking news... (Score:4, Insightful)
The question is whether or not it's a threat or incitement to violence, not whether or not somebody has already pulled the trigger as a result. And in all your name-calling, I notice you couldn't answer the question of how bullets get into someone's head except through violent means. Try again, pottymouth.
Since you seem to have reading comprehension issues, nowhere in there did I defend Sarah Palin's choice of ad campaign, or even her as a politician or a person. I'm simply pointing out a tremendous double standard - her campaign ad had tenuous-at-best relevance to Mr. Loughner's actions, but she was castigated for using "violent imagery" as if she were the sole - or even a proximal - cause of the incident.
And yet we have someone threatening to "put his bullets" in someone's head, and people are struggling to come up with a way to explain how it's not *really* a threat, and didn't *actually* threaten harm. The double standard is simply breathtaking, and your furiously ham-fisted and vulgar response simply underscores the point: rather than acknowledge that this man made a real threat by any reasonable standard of judgement, you'll simply call me a "repulsive cunt" and report in for your Anti-Tea Party Rant profile badge over on DKos.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You seem unsettlingly sure of that.
Wow (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That was my thought. Cantor is evil, but that's no reason to threaten him. As rewarding as it would be, you can't just string up politicians for being evil.
Re:Wow (Score:5, Funny)
That was my thought. Cantor is evil, but that's no reason to threaten him. As rewarding as it would be, you can't just string up politicians for being evil.
I don't recall reading anything in the constitution that forbids "stringing up politicians" so isn't it then left up to the states? Also I don't recall reading any law forbidding it in my state nor local governments so doesn't that mean it's left up for us to decide? :-)
Anagram. (Score:2, Interesting)
His name is an anagram for: Loner Man Noob
Anagram #2 (Score:4, Funny)
Mr. Non-Boolean
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
just makeing a bomb threat will do the same thing (Score:3)
just makeing a bomb threat will do the same thing and it may be a pound me in ass one.
Re: (Score:2)
Now I've never made a bomb, and don't know how small you can get one.. but I'm thinking if you have to pound on it to get it in there, it's probably too big
Parsing problem (Score:2)
Did anyone else initially understand the headline to mean "Threatening to make a YouTube Video (presumably about someone) Lands Man In Prison"?
No? Just checking!
A Fine Expression (Score:5, Insightful)
This guy might have benefitted from a quip emblazoned on a plaque my grandpappy had on his wall:
Perhaps I'll send Norman the plaque to decorate his jail cell.
Re: (Score:2)
That doesn't apply in this case.
Saying nothing is only an expression if you are being asked (or expected to) speak and then don't. If your opinion isn't required in the first place, then saying nothing simply means saying nothing, it is not an expression of anything at all.
The guy in TFA was clearly not being asked his opinion by anyone, instead he felt it necessary to speak out for what he believed.
Re: (Score:2)
I find some people spend too much time yapping instead of listening. You don't always have to be saying something.
Re: (Score:2)
That isn't the exact wisdom of the aphorism, but it would be a close corollary. The aphorism is a warning against putting your foot in your mouth, as the other Anonymous Coward person did.
Re: (Score:2)
You've misconstrued the specific wisdom and suggestion of the aphorism. It's apparent from your general overreaction that you enjoyed leveling the accusation in the final sentence, so it's disingenuous to apologize for making it. You weren't sorry at all.
Your remarks are a perfect example of what the plaque was advising against doing, precisely because you mentally shot from the hip and the example you used was not relevant. What you should be sorry - or at least embarrassed - about is being wrong altoge
Re: (Score:2)
There's stuff like voting, or civil disobedience.
Name That Party! (Score:4, Insightful)
Kind of funny that Slashdot has fallen victim to the sickness of always letting you know up-front if someone being threatened or harmed in some way is a Democrat, but as with any of the media outlets seems to "accidentally" leave off mention when the potential victim is a Republican.
Also kind of funny you don't see Tea Party people being arrested for this kind of lunacy even though from reading Slashot you'd think that every last one of them were equally insane.
People here on Slashdot seem to equate the conservative body of thought in general with threats and stifling of thought, but repeatedly (as we see echoed in Wisconsin) you have to look to the edges of the left to see actual threats (or even actions) materialize.
The judiciary is a puppet of top corporates (Score:2)
special treatment of politicians needs to end (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Considering death threats against democrats are headline news and against republicans they're embargo'd? What you said is far from true. Lexisnexis is over there, feel free to use it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Death threats against Democrats are given the "aw, shucks" treatment.
References, please. When did this happen? Who specifically said it was "aw, shucks" for a Democrat to receive death threats?
Because I remember the news media spending weeks chiding [salon.com] Republicans and Tea Party members for an "extreme tone", while the same news media was much less interested [huffingtonpost.com] in actual death threats made against Republicans.
It was big news that Sarah Palin's campaign used marks to indicate cities [talkingpointsmemo.com] on a map, and the news media
Re: (Score:2)
... but in recent weeks death threats have been made against both Scott Walker (WI-R) and now Eric Cantor (VA-R) with barely any media coverage.
Aw shucks? Your statement isn't true at all!
I don't know about the threats against Walker, but LeBoon posted his video threatening Cantor on YouTube in March 2010. I'm pretty sure it got some coverage then (but you'll have to Google it yourself).
Re:meanwhile.... (Score:5, Funny)
As others have suggested, the difference is that unlike the GOP, the Democratic party doesn't encourage, endorse or suggest violence as a means of solving the political problems int he US. Or have you forgotten about that? The various incidents were pretty well covered by the media.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Neither the GOP nor the Democratic party encourage, endorse, or suggest political violence as a means of solving our problems. Some of both of their supporters do so, however, and it's mostly on the left. The far left espouses violence so much because that's generally the only way it can either gain or keep power. How ofter does a country vote in communism? Even more importantly, how ofter does a country vote out communism? The first thing a communist government does is make any other political or economic
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Several points:
-- Glenn Beck is not a "mainstream politician on the right". He's a guy who's payed to say provocative shit in the media to generate viewer numbers. Those ratings are turned into profits by the Fox News Channel through the magic of advertising. Much like Howard Stern's detractors listen to him for long stretches of time "just to hear what he's going to say next," Glenn Beck is in the same business.
-- He uses violent rhetoric because it's provocative: it's attention grabbing, it's sensatio
Re: (Score:2)
The GOP candidate for vice president in the last election used rhetoric that is clearly going to be interpreted as a call to violence by some of the target audience.
Obviously they aren't stupid enough to say something without enough wiggle room that they can pretend they never thought anyone would interpret them like that. And they likely don't actually want any violence to result - t
your kidding, right? (Score:2)
It is quite documented that their adherents do the threatening and bullying for them. I seem to recall more than one sitting Congressmen of the Democratic sort making stupid comments and threats. Their supporters certainly do. If your telling me they have nothing to do with the SEIU or that their followers in Wisconsin don't count then I guess your definition of the Democratic party must be pretty damn narrow.
Both sides have their loons, to claim it is the domain of one party to make threats is just plain i
Re: (Score:2)
> Go look up Jim David Adkisson if you want.
Another obviously mentally disturbed individual, if we have to claim him you guys have to take Laughner and his higher body count. Being an obvious nut probably explains the scant national coverage, which I did miss even though CNN apparently at least had a piece on their net presence.
> Check out Roy Warden.
What about him? Google doesn't find any crimes committed by him, at least on the first page. Anti-illegal immigration is ok but he seems to go a wee b
Re: (Score:2)
I've been flying my RC scale predator drone over many local paranoid group meetings (tea party, gun shows, green party, critical mass, dead heads, peace rallies etc) for the last year or so. Being in Sacramento I've got a fairly target rich environment even without traveling to the bay area. Gotta watch the airspace over state buildings though. That will get you in big trouble even with a dinky electric 'park flyer'. If they catch you of course.
Feeding their paranoia. I know I'm bad.
Posting in the hope
Re:meanwhile.... (Score:4, Informative)
That's because he *is* trolling.
Here are two recent and telling examples of why the troll is wrong:
Exhibit A: Crazy person goes on a rampage and shoots a Democrat politician in the head, nearly killing her.
Media response: Multiple week long circus trying to blame Sarah Palin for the actions of a loon.
Police response: Local police Chief spends more time in front of the camera railing against the Tea Party than he does investigating the attack.
End result: Eventually the investigation is completed by the FBI. The crazy person was crazy and acted alone, uninfluenced by any mainstream political thought or either party. Media continues blame game against Palin unabated.
Exhibit B: After a week spent trashing the capital building in Madison, Leftist thugs send multiple death threats against Wisconsin GOP members and their families.
Media response: Nonexistent outside Fox and the con-alt-media.
Police response: 1 month later and they have ONE person in custody.
End Result: Still playing out.
These are only the most recent examples. I could come up with many more. The point is, in public life in general and in the media in particular, Dems are generally given a pass and let slide when it comes to misbehavior. But the same behavior done by a GOP member elicits WEEKS of scathing coverage with the clear and obvious intent of the absolute destruction of said GOP politician.
Not to say that ANY politician should be allowed to slide when they do wrong. They should be absolutely held accountable. But it would be nice, for a change, if we got the same anti-corruption zeal from the MSM when the bad guy or gal is a 'D' as we do when he or she is an 'R'.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
That's not a citation, that's your interpretation. Threatening a public official isn't automatically going to end with court proceedings, there is a legal threshold that must be met. It doesn't happen to occur to you that if Fox was the only one covering it that the threats might not have been credible?
Remember Fox and the con-alt-media are the ones that believe in this massive liberal conspiracy and that Fox went to court specifically to defend its right to make up stories. Fox itself isn't a source of new
Re:meanwhile.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually he makes a very good point. 18 Wisconsin congressmen [wausaudailyherald.com] reported death threats after the collective bargaining bill was passed there recently. Yet, you actually do have to go looking to find anything about it on most nationwide news sites. That link above is from a daily newspaper in a small town in central Wisconsin. I'm surprised I wasn't able to at easily find a wire service story about the death threats, given the hysterical nature of the rest of the coverage of the issue.
considering that CNN did report that death threats have led to at least one set of charges, [cnn.com] it's hard to imagine that Fox News was just making shit up about the threats, as you're trying to suggest.
Re: (Score:3)
Care to name the last time a Republican shot a Democrat? Please cite your source or admit that you're a troll.
1838 [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
And if Dan Rather got on the news and said, "My Congressman Eric Cantor [...] you receive my bullets in your office, remember they will be placed in your heads," it wouldn't be a free speech issue either. It's a pretty direct threat: "my bullets will be placed in your heads." How do bullets usually get inside of someone's body again?
Re: (Score:3)
Probably because there's a difference between removing a document (movie, etc) from public view and putting it on the public record as evidence.
Re: (Score:2)
What's that got to do with censorship?
Re: (Score:2)
Die Obama
Oh, the interlingual puns.